For the relation between the Nicolaitans and Nicolas of Antioch, see art. NIcoLAs. There appears to be no suflicient reason for rejecting the ey explanation of the connexion as sup- pre by Clem. of Alex. (without accepting
etails). _We know, from other instances, the anxiety of early heretics (e.g. the Basilidians and the Valentinians) to father their views upon some apostle or associate of the apostles. At the same time it is possible that a diflerent Nicolas was the real founder of the sect, and was confused after- wards with the better-known ‘deacon.’ Cassian states (Collat. xviii. 16) that some in his time (A.D. 420) held that the founder was some other Nicolas ; and in the Lives of the Prophets, Apostles, ete., ascribed (erroneously) to Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre, in the end of the 3rd cent., Nicolas of Antioch is identified with a bishop Nicolas of Samaria who is said to have become a heretic in company with
* This view, originally hinted at by Cooceius (Cogit. in Ap.), was first enunciated by Heumann (Acta Brud, for 1712, p. 179), who adopts the interpretation ‘ destroyer,’ and then by Vitringa Anakr, Apoc.), who interprets Balaam as ‘lord of the people.’
Ὁ also Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Stier. Trench YS ase Churches, p. 781.), accepting the theory that the name Nicolaitans in Rev is symbolical, supposes t ‘one of the innumerable branches ot the Gnostic heresy, springing up ata later day, assumed this name which they found ready-made for them in the Apocalypse.’ The Gnosticism of the Nicolaitans has been recently aed by Voelter, who associates them with the Carpocratians, as an argument in favour of assigning the seven epistles in the Bk. of Rev to about a.p, 140 (Hntst. d. Apok.
p. 44f. 191); but the germs of Gnosticiam existed admittedly es the Apostolic Age; and it is quite natural for writers of the 2nd and 3rd cents. to apply the name to heretics, who flourished before its adoption as a formal designation. The incipient Gnosticism of the Nicolaitans can be denied (as by Modiffert, Chr. in Ap. Age, he 625) only on the assumption that Iren. Tert. and Hipp. pack y infer: ita existence from the immoral outcome of Nicolaitan doctrine.
ἡ The Chronicon Paschale (ΟἹ. 221) speaks of Simon, bishop of Jerus., a8 δια βλυϑείς by Nicolaitans, in a.p, 107.
1 ‘Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitw : Caiana hwresis dicitur.' This suggests that by a.p, 200 the N. had ceased to exist as a separate sect, and had been absorbed by other secta of Gnostica. The name was applied by the Synod of Piacenza (1095) to ‘ inconti nent’ (inclu τοῦ married) priests and deacons (Hefele, Con ciliengeach, ν. 104).
548 NICOLAS
Simon Magus. Ps.-Doroth. (6. 6th cent.) is not a trustworthy authority; but the connexion with the ‘ father of Gnosticism’ is suggestive ; and since Nicolas of Antioch is nowhere else referred to as a bishop, or as associated with Samaria, the tradi- tion may indicate the existence of another Nicolas, with whom the pseudo-Dorotheus confounded Nicolas of Antioch.*
Lireratuns.—Janus, Dissert. de Nicolait.; Ἰοῦς, Dissert. ; Mosheim, Dissert.; Vitringa, Anakrisis pocal.; Burton, Heresies of the Apostolic Age; Trench, Epistles to the Seven Churches; Holtzmann, Neutest, Theol.; Voelter, Entstehung der Apoc,; Weizsiicker, Apost. Zeitalter ; MoGiffert, Christi- anity in Ap, Age; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity; the Commentaries of Alford, Lange, Volkmar, Kliefoth, Stern, Wordsworth, Bousset, Zéckler, etc. ; Woblenberg in Neue kirch, Zeitschrift for 1895. i. CowAN.
NICOLAS (Νικόλαος, ‘ conqueror of the people ’).— A proselyte + (to Judaism) of Antioch ; one of the seven men selected by the Christians of Jerusalem and appointed by the apostles to look after the ‘daily ministration’ to the poor (Ac 6°).t He is nowhere mentioned afterwards in the NT, and is first referred to elsewhere by Ireneus (adv. Her. i. 26), who states that the Nicolaitans of Rev 2 were his followers. Hippolytus (Ref. Her. vii. 24) declares more distinctly that Nicolas was a heretic, who ‘departed from correct doctrine’ and inculcated ‘indifference of life.’ Pseudo-Tertullian (adv. omn. Her. 3, probably of 3rd cent.) charges him still more strongly with immoral teaching. On the other hand, in the longer Greek recension of the lenatian Epistles, mention is twice made of those who are ‘falsely called Nicolaitans’ (Zrall. 11, Phil. 6; cf. Ap. Const. vi. 8); sug, Nicolaitans improperly claimed Nicolas as their founder. Eusebius (ΠΕ iii. 29) refers to this pre- tension in a connexion which implies that he re- garded it as unfounded. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 4, quoted by Eus. l.c.) relates what would readily explain at once the claim of the Nicolaitans, the testimony of ‘Ignatius’ and Eusebius, and a probable misconception by Iren- eus, Hippolytus, and other subsequent writers. Clement states that Nicolas had a beautiful wife, and that, on ‘ being reproached by the apostles for his jealousy, he conducted her into the midst of them, and gave her over (érérpeyev)’—i.e. pre- sumably, offered to do so—to any one who might wish to marry her.§ To this anecdote is appended a saying of Nicolas that ‘one ought to abuse’ or ‘use hardly (παραχρᾶσθαι) the flesh.’ Clement is careful, however, to state his own interpretation of that phrase as signifying not indulgence in but abstinence from fleshly lusts ; and he adds that Nicolas himself lived a virtuous married life, and that his family also were chaste. The over-com- placency of Nicolas regarding his wife is scarcely credible, and is perhaps a misrepresentation of some protest of N. against an imputation of self-